In Lewis v. Campau, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable even if it did not contain any consideration from either party. The case involved an agreement between William Lewis and John Campau to transfer title to certain real estate in Michigan for $1,000. Although there was no evidence of consideration exchanged by either party, the court found that there had been sufficient mutual assent to form a binding contract under Michigan law at the time. Furthermore, since both parties were competent adults who had voluntarily entered into this agreement without fraud or coercion, they should be bound by its terms regardless of whether or not any actual consideration had passed hands. Thus, despite lacking traditional elements such as money changing hands or services being rendered in exchange for something else, this contract was still legally binding on both parties due to their voluntary consent and lack of duress or deception during formation.

In Lewis v. Campau, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of land in Michigan had been legally executed and delivered. The majority opinion held that the deed had not been properly delivered because it lacked an essential element: delivery by the grantor himself or his agent. Justice Swayne dissented from this decision, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to show that delivery had occurred through other means such as handing over possession of the property and making payments on behalf of the grantor. He further argued that even if no formal delivery took place, equity should still recognize its validity due to long-term occupation by third parties who were unaware of any defect in title or lack thereof. In conclusion, Justice Swayne believed that under these circumstances it would be unjust for courts to deny recognition of a validly executed deed based solely on technicalities regarding its formality at execution and delivery.